Webcam on PMT!

On 7/9/2011 5:37 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> On 7/5/2011 8:15 AM, Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:15:26 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:
>>
>>> In newsp.vx28coj3hswpfo@dell3100,
>>> Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:05:35 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And it seems nobody is manufacturing 7 inch netbooks anymore. I like
>>>>> them because they are the smallest and generally the lightest
>>>>> netbooks. If I want larger, I use a laptop. And it seems as used 7
>>>>> inch netbooks are getting harder and harder to find, the prices are
>>>>> going up and not down. Now it seems yours is even worth more used
>>>>> than it did when it was new. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Not that your saying it, but the 701, whilst having a 7" screen, is
>>>> the same size ("form factor") as the 901, i.e. it's bigger than 7"
>>>> across.
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing it here.
>>>
>>> 225mm x 165mm @ 922 grams = All 700 series
>>> 225mm x 170mm @ 990 grams = 900
>>> 248mm x 175.3mm @ 1140 grams = 901
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asus_Eee_PC
>>>
>>> So the 901 is 23mm x 10.3mm larger than the 700 series. Another nice
>>> thing about the 700 series is that the speakers are alongside of the
>>> screen. Which sounds a lot better than on the bottom like most other
>>> netbooks.
>>>
>> Ah, OK. I once saw someone ask if it'd be possible to put a 900 screen
>> on a 701.
>> I ass*u*med they were the same size.
>>
>> My point, that I failed to make, is that the 701 is significantly bigger
>> than 7" across diagonally. (Gets 701 and tape measure) I make it 10 and
>> 3/4 inches or 275mm in new money. I still want a 901 for the screen
>> size, the 701 either doesn't show stuff, or I have to run a virtual
>> screen scrolling prog which doesn't quite track where the screen
>> should be.
>
> Ah yes! I can definitely appreciate the larger screen. And the 9 inch
> gets you there the easy way. Although did you ever use AsTray2? As it
> uses a little known feature of downscaling (or sometimes called
> compressed mode) of Intel graphics. And I can use up to 1024x768 without
> scrolling on a 7 inch screen. And that helps a great deal when you need
> to see the whole larger desktop without scrolling.

Oh yeah... so what was the outcome of connecting up a 9 inch screen on a
7 inch model? Electronically I think it should work ok. I don't know of
the BIOS needs to be updated to support the higher resolution screen or
not. But physically, it sounds like a very tight fit to me. As it seems
so much easier to just get a real 9 inch netbook to me. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 04:49:11 -0500, BillW50 <> wrote:

>On 7/6/2011 9:35 PM, AJL wrote:

>> I'm home. Nope, no model number unless it's in the Chinese
>> characters...

>it looks like from Wikipedia, all 2G models were Surf (without
>webcam).

From Wikipedia: "In some countries, the products have the marketing
names EeePC 8G, 4G, 4G Surf, and 2G Surf, though in other countries
the machines are still designated by the model numbers 700 and 701."

Apparently in this country they marketed by the name only. Course it
would be interesting to see what the box said but that's long gone.

>I also read that no 702 model was sold with Windows XP on them.

My 2G Surf came with XP drivers on the disk, though as I said before,
when I put XP on it, it was not a great experience.

>I know I was looking for one and I couldn't, so maybe it is true.
>Although the 701SD model looks very much like a 702 and also has 8G
>(also removable). But it uses the cheaper MLC SSD instead of the better
>SLC SSD.

Yes, my Surf definitely has the cheaper SSD, making it slow, but still
useable. And what do you expect for US$199 anyway...

Postscript:

I just dug out my 2G manual dated December 2007. They slipped up. At
the bottom of page 3 it says "ASUS Eee PC 700". That is the only place
that I could find in the entire manual where it refers to a model
number. (At the bottom of all the other pages it just says "ASUS Eee
PC"...

In news:,
AJL wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 04:49:11 -0500, BillW50 <> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/2011 9:35 PM, AJL wrote:
>
>>> I'm home. Nope, no model number unless it's in the Chinese
>>> characters...
>
>> it looks like from Wikipedia, all 2G models were Surf (without
>> webcam).
>
> From Wikipedia: "In some countries, the products have the marketing
> names EeePC 8G, 4G, 4G Surf, and 2G Surf, though in other countries
> the machines are still designated by the model numbers 700 and 701."
>
> Apparently in this country they marketed by the name only. Course it
> would be interesting to see what the box said but that's long gone.

Well I still have five boxes here. And the boxes are exactly the same no
matter which model was in there. And the ones that came with XP have the
Windows logo. The only other difference is a label on the side that
tells you what is in the box.

1) Model: 701 (this one is a Surf)
AU EEEPC4G_Surf/701/1BLK/US

2) Model: EeePC 4G
AU EEEPC4G/701/1BLK/US

3) Model: 701 (this one is from the UK)
AU 701 4GA/512M/UK/1BLACK

4) Model: EeePC 8G
AU EEEPC8G/702/WHI/US

5) Model: EeePC 8G
AU EEEPC8G/702/WHI/US

>> I also read that no 702 model was sold with Windows XP on them.
>
> My 2G Surf came with XP drivers on the disk, though as I said before,
> when I put XP on it, it was not a great experience.
>
>> I know I was looking for one and I couldn't, so maybe it is true.
>> Although the 701SD model looks very much like a 702 and also has 8G
>> (also removable). But it uses the cheaper MLC SSD instead of the
>> better SLC SSD.
>
> Yes, my Surf definitely has the cheaper SSD, making it slow, but still
> useable. And what do you expect for US$199 anyway...
>
> Postscript:
>
> I just dug out my 2G manual dated December 2007. They slipped up. At
> the bottom of page 3 it says "ASUS Eee PC 700". That is the only place
> that I could find in the entire manual where it refers to a model
> number. (At the bottom of all the other pages it just says "ASUS Eee
> PC"...

Fascinating. My manuals states:

E3509 (Xandros)

Eee PC 4G (701)
Eee PC 4G Surf
Eee PC 8G

October 2007

And the manuals between all of them are the same, except for the ones
that came with Windows XP. They are totally different.

E3683 (Windows XP)

Eee PC 8G
Eee PC 4G
Eee PC 4G Surf

February 2008

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 7/10/2011 10:22 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> 4) Model: EeePC 8G
> AU EEEPC8G/702/WHI/US
>
> 5) Model: EeePC 8G
> AU EEEPC8G/702/WHI/US

Those two should read:

AU EEEPC8G/702/1WHI/US

Asus adds that number one before the color. All five have it. Not sure
what it means.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:22:46 -0500, "BillW50" <> wrote:

>Well I still have five boxes here. And the boxes are exactly the same no
>matter which model was in there.

Sure wish I'd saved my box. You never know when you'll need one to
solve a mystery...

>My manuals states:...
>Eee PC 4G (701)

So most of your manuals (except the one quoted) don't give
model numbers either.

I did a little searching and have yet to find a site that gives an
actual model number for the 2G Surf. Only the apparent one time slip
up in the 2G manual (700) and Wikipedia's article (700 or 701) give a
clue. As you can tell I have a lot of free time on my hands...

In news:,
AJL wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:22:46 -0500, "BillW50" <> wrote:
>
>> Well I still have five boxes here. And the boxes are exactly the
>> same no matter which model was in there.
>
> Sure wish I'd saved my box. You never know when you'll need one to
> solve a mystery...

They are not all that big and I have mine up on the bookshelf.

>> My manuals states:...
>> Eee PC 4G (701)
>
> So most of your manuals (except the one quoted) don't give
> model numbers either.

No I mean there are only two different manuals (E3509 and E3683) that I
have. All of the Linux ones are all one manual (E3509) and all of the
Windows ones are another (E3683). And the Linux manual covers the
following three models. It doesn't matter if they are a 701 or a 702
model.

E3509 (Xandros)

Eee PC 4G (701)
Eee PC 4G Surf
Eee PC 8G

October 2007

And the Windows ones are all of the same and cover the following models.

E3683 (Windows XP)

Eee PC 8G
Eee PC 4G
Eee PC 4G Surf

February 2008

So what's the E number of your manual?

Here is a link to the XP version (although two months older than what I
have) I found. So you can see what I mean.

http://www.retrevo.com/support/Asus-...7047bh043/t/2/

> I did a little searching and have yet to find a site that gives an
> actual model number for the 2G Surf. Only the apparent one time slip
> up in the 2G manual (700) and Wikipedia's article (700 or 701) give a
> clue. As you can tell I have a lot of free time on my hands...

So what are you running on your Surf? I had to give up on Xandros since
Firefox 2 can't view many websites anymore (worse than trying to use
IE6). So I am using Ubuntu once again.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:59:43 -0500, "BillW50" <> wrote:

>there are only two different manuals (E3509 and E3683) that I
>have. All of the Linux ones are all one manual (E3509) and all of the
>Windows ones are another (E3683).

>So what's the E number of your manual?

My 2G Surf manual is E3607 (Dec 2007).
The XP Installation Guide insert is E3606 (Dec 2007).

To add to the confusion:

Manual for my 1000HW (purchased 10-08):
No manual number/no manual date. Title page says XP edition, covers
1000 series and 904/905 series.

Manual for my 1015PE (purchased 5-11):
Manual: E5871 (no date)
Technical Update Insert: E5782 (no date)

>So what are you running on your Surf?

It's completely stock. I brought it back to the factory standards
using the built in hidden recovery partition.

>I had to give up on Xandros since
>Firefox 2 can't view many websites anymore

Have you tried using the built in Konqueror browser/file manager? It
still does a pretty good job, course YMMV.

>So I am using Ubuntu once again.

That won't fit on the 2G. However I have used the 10-10 version dual
booting on a couple of my XP laptops. In both cases it was mostly
slower than XP, ran the battery down faster, and of course wouldn't
run much of the Windows software I like (like this Agent newsreader -
Pan was no substitute). I of course tried Wine but while it partially
worked, it always seemed to have a problem with my stuff.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 13:08:53 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:

> On 7/9/2011 5:37 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>> On 7/5/2011 8:15 AM, Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:15:26 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In newsp.vx28coj3hswpfo@dell3100,
>>>> Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:05:35 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And it seems nobody is manufacturing 7 inch netbooks anymore. I like
>>>>>> them because they are the smallest and generally the lightest
>>>>>> netbooks. If I want larger, I use a laptop. And it seems as used 7
>>>>>> inch netbooks are getting harder and harder to find, the prices are
>>>>>> going up and not down. Now it seems yours is even worth more used
>>>>>> than it did when it was new. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that your saying it, but the 701, whilst having a 7" screen, is
>>>>> the same size ("form factor") as the 901, i.e. it's bigger than 7"
>>>>> across.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not seeing it here.
>>>>
>>>> 225mm x 165mm @ 922 grams = All 700 series
>>>> 225mm x 170mm @ 990 grams = 900
>>>> 248mm x 175.3mm @ 1140 grams = 901
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asus_Eee_PC
>>>>
>>>> So the 901 is 23mm x 10.3mm larger than the 700 series. Another nice
>>>> thing about the 700 series is that the speakers are alongside of the
>>>> screen. Which sounds a lot better than on the bottom like most other
>>>> netbooks.
>>>>
>>> Ah, OK. I once saw someone ask if it'd be possible to put a 900 screen
>>> on a 701.
>>> I ass*u*med they were the same size.
>>>
>>> My point, that I failed to make, is that the 701 is significantly
>>> bigger
>>> than 7" across diagonally. (Gets 701 and tape measure) I make it 10 and
>>> 3/4 inches or 275mm in new money. I still want a 901 for the screen
>>> size, the 701 either doesn't show stuff, or I have to run a virtual
>>> screen scrolling prog which doesn't quite track where the screen
>>> should be.
>>
>> Ah yes! I can definitely appreciate the larger screen. And the 9 inch
>> gets you there the easy way. Although did you ever use AsTray2? As it
>> uses a little known feature of downscaling (or sometimes called
>> compressed mode) of Intel graphics. And I can use up to 1024x768 without
>> scrolling on a 7 inch screen. And that helps a great deal when you need
>> to see the whole larger desktop without scrolling.
>
> Oh yeah... so what was the outcome of connecting up a 9 inch screen on a
> 7 inch model? Electronically I think it should work ok. I don't know of
> the BIOS needs to be updated to support the higher resolution screen or
> not. But physically, it sounds like a very tight fit to me. As it seems
> so much easier to just get a real 9 inch netbook to me. ;-)
>

I think that was the answer! (i.e it just ain't worth the hassle trying)

--
[dash dash space newline sig]

"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:37:58 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:

> On 7/5/2011 8:15 AM, Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:15:26 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:
>>
>>> In newsp.vx28coj3hswpfo@dell3100,
>>> Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:05:35 +0100, BillW50 <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And it seems nobody is manufacturing 7 inch netbooks anymore. I like
>>>>> them because they are the smallest and generally the lightest
>>>>> netbooks. If I want larger, I use a laptop. And it seems as used 7
>>>>> inch netbooks are getting harder and harder to find, the prices are
>>>>> going up and not down. Now it seems yours is even worth more used
>>>>> than it did when it was new. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Not that your saying it, but the 701, whilst having a 7" screen, is
>>>> the same size ("form factor") as the 901, i.e. it's bigger than 7"
>>>> across.
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing it here.
>>>
>>> 225mm x 165mm @ 922 grams = All 700 series
>>> 225mm x 170mm @ 990 grams = 900
>>> 248mm x 175.3mm @ 1140 grams = 901
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asus_Eee_PC
>>>
>>> So the 901 is 23mm x 10.3mm larger than the 700 series. Another nice
>>> thing about the 700 series is that the speakers are alongside of the
>>> screen. Which sounds a lot better than on the bottom like most other
>>> netbooks.
>>>
>> Ah, OK. I once saw someone ask if it'd be possible to put a 900 screen
>> on a 701.
>> I ass*u*med they were the same size.
>>
>> My point, that I failed to make, is that the 701 is significantly bigger
>> than 7" across diagonally. (Gets 701 and tape measure) I make it 10 and
>> 3/4 inches or 275mm in new money. I still want a 901 for the screen
>> size, the 701 either doesn't show stuff, or I have to run a virtual
>> screen scrolling prog which doesn't quite track where the screen should
>> be.
>
> Ah yes! I can definitely appreciate the larger screen. And the 9 inch
> gets you there the easy way. Although did you ever use AsTray2? As it

It's a windows app?
I'm running xpud - so there should be a way.

> uses a little known feature of downscaling (or sometimes called
> compressed mode) of Intel graphics. And I can use up to 1024x768 without
> scrolling on a 7 inch screen. And that helps a great deal when you need
> to see the whole larger desktop without scrolling.
>


--
[dash dash space newline sig]

"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"